Court rules attorney fees not mandatory

Open-government advocates are disturbed by a public-records ruling handed down by the Ohio
Supreme Court last week.

The justices
voted 6-1 to uphold a ruling against a South Euclid woman who was denied
recovery of attorney fees in a case where the city did not turn over records she had sought until
she went to court.

The woman maintained she was entitled to mandatory reimbursement of her legal fees. The court
majority disagreed, ruling that a 2007 change in state law made payment of a plaintiff’s attorney
fees mandatory only if a court ordered the production of records.

After ignoring the woman’s records request for two months, South Euclid finally turned over the
records a couple of days after she filed a complaint in court.

Justice Sharon L. Kennedy was the lone dissenter. “If no fees could be awarded unless the court
had ordered a party to produce records, it would allow a public office to sit on a public-records
request until a case was filed and then turn over the records before the court had a chance to
issue an order,” she wrote.

Dennis Hetzel, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, said: “Unlike many
other states, Ohio citizens have few options other than going to court if their requests are
rebuffed.

“Public-records cases aren’t typical lawsuits. The relief you want is the record, not money, and
you shouldn’t have to be wealthy to fight City Hall. In this decision, the court has made it much
more difficult to recover attorney fees.”

The court ruled that the woman was entitled to a recovery of damages. Ohio law caps
public-records damages at $100 a day and a maximum of $1,000.